‘Unmasking Antifa Act' includes 15-year prison term proposal

[RichardCranium]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/%e2%80%98unmasking-antifa-act-includes-15-year-prison-term-proposal/ar-AAzTJzI?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP



The "Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018," legislation introduced in the House, carries a potential 15-year prison sentence for those caught engaging in behaviors typically associated with the "antifa" movement of anti-fascist activists.

Under the act, anyone "wearing a mask" or in disguise who "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege" would be subject to a fine or up to 15 years in prison.

[Parkbandit]

I support this.

Also in before Backlash: Antifa LITERALLY means Anti-facism. They can't possibly be a problem. At all. This was all proven to be true on PolitiFACT.. so I know it's FACTual.

[Archigeek]

I think you guys are supporting this based on title alone. The text is foolishly broad, and would never pass a court challenge. This is a waste of tax payer dollars.

[audioserf]

Yeah. Catchy title but the whole text is written to allow prosecution of basically anyone who dissents with the administration. It's not going anywhere.

[Methais]

What happens if they do all that but aren't wearing a mask though?

And does this apply to ninjas? If so that's racist. Not that they would get caught, but still.

http://www.realultimatepower.net/ninja/ninjaparty.jpg (www.realultimatepower.net)

[audioserf]

Even if this could get passed, it's dangerous precedent. Think to the future if the Democrats ever get their heads out of their own ass holes and win the Presidency again. Do you really want law the Dems can point to that says demonstration/dissent by conservatives is worthy of prosecution? We do not need to give the government MORE power than they have.

[Tgo01]

Do you really want law the Dems can point to that says demonstration/dissent by conservatives is worthy of prosecution? We do not need to give the government MORE power than they have.

That's not what the law says at all.

The law specifically says you can't attack or intimidate someone else who is enjoying a right afforded to them by the government. The law also states the person has to be wearing a mask or a disguise.

There are already laws on the books that prevent people from disguising their identity in public (ironically or unirionically in response to the KKK and their hoods) and there are already laws on the books in regards to a person depriving another person of their civil rights. This law just seems to be taking elements of these two laws in response to a group of dangerous "activists."

[time4fun]

Even if this could get passed, it's dangerous precedent. Think to the future if the Democrats ever get their heads out of their own ass holes and win the Presidency again. Do you really want law the Dems can point to that says demonstration/dissent by conservatives is worthy of prosecution? We do not need to give the government MORE power than they have.

Democrats would never pass something like that. This is a very Republican thing to do. It's all part of their obsession with enshrining minority rule.

[Taernath]

Most states already have 'anti mask' laws in place that either upgrade a charge or are a separate charge entirely, but nowhere near a 15 year penalty. Felony assault is a lesser penalty than this proposed law, lol.

This is pretty clearly just political grandstanding.

[Tgo01]

Democrats would never pass something like that. This is a very Republican thing to do. It's all part of their obsession with enshrining minority rule.

Good thing the Republican bill is nothing like that. It's like you do zero research of your own.

[Tgo01]

Most states already have 'anti mask' laws in place that either upgrade a charge or are a separate charge entirely, but nowhere near a 15 year penalty. This is pretty clearly just political grandstanding.

It's not just wearing masks though, it's also attacking or intimidating someone for enjoying their rights.

Also the law allows for a fine or up to 15 years in prison. It's highly unlikely someone is going to get 15 years in prison for shouting at someone while wearing a mask. Now if the person were beating someone with a baseball bat while wearing a mask because their victim dared to express their first amendment rights then they might get 15 years and I would have no problem with that.

[Taernath]

It's not just wearing masks though, it's also attacking or intimidating someone for enjoying their rights.

Also the law allows for a fine or up to 15 years in prison. It's highly unlikely someone is going to get 15 years in prison for shouting at someone while wearing a mask. Now if the person were beating someone with a baseball bat while wearing a mask because their victim dared to express their first amendment rights then they might get 15 years and I would have no problem with that.

I edited my post. Felony assault carries a lesser penalty than this law.

[Tgo01]

I edited my post. Felony assault carries a lesser penalty than this law.

The government tends to take things more seriously when the intent of the lawbreakers is to attack another person's rights.

There is already a similar law where if two people just conspire to intimidate someone from enjoying their rights they can face up to 10 years in prison, and if they go ahead and attack the person and end up killing them they can receive the death penalty. This is a separate law from manslaughter so even if they accidentally killed the person, but they went there to harass them because they were expressing their free speech, they can still receive the death penalty.

So really this law isn't much different than what laws already exist, expect it takes away the conspiracy requirement, adds on the disguise requirement, and adds an extra possible 5 years to the sentence.

[Robert Hamburger]

I would like to formally request an exemption from this law on behalf of the ninja community.

Please, allow me to state my case...

The Official Ninja Post
http://www.realultimatepower.net/ninja/ninjaparty.jpg
Real Ultimate Power

Hi, this post is all about ninjas, REAL NINJAS. This post is awesome. My name is Robert and I can't stop thinking about ninjas. These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.

Facts:

1. Ninjas are mammals.
2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.

Weapons and gear:

https://i.imgur.com/4VBlsSV.png

Testimonial:

Ninjas can kill anyone they want! Ninjas cut off heads ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this ninja who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon the ninja killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a ninja totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window.

And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't believe that ninjas have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will chop your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.

Ninjas are sooooooooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants. I can't believe it sometimes, but I feel it inside my heart. These guys are totally awesome and that's a fact. Ninjas are fast, smooth, cool, strong, powerful, and sweet. I can't wait to start yoga next year. I love ninjas with all of my body (including my pee pee).

Q and A:.

Q: Why is everyone so obsessed about ninjas?
A: Ninjas are the ultimate paradox. On the one hand they don't give a crap, but on the other hand, ninjas are very careful and precise.

Q: I heard that ninjas are always cruel or mean. What's their problem?
A: Whoever told you that is a total liar. Just like other mammals, ninjas can be mean OR totally awesome.

Q: What do ninjas do when they're not cutting off heads or flipping out?
A: Most of their free time is spent flying, but sometime they stab. (Ask Mark if you don't believe me.)

http://www.realultimatepower.net/ninja/kidgarbage.jpg
This is a picture of my best friend Mark showing off. He's a lot older than me and almost done with puberty, which is bragable.

http://www.realultimatepower.net/ninja/ninjasig.jpg Link to me, by cutting and pasting the link box!
FastCounter by bCentral
================================================== ==
realultimatepower.net
All material here is the property of Robert Hamburger
Copyright 2005


Thank you.

[Tgo01]

Ninjas suck. Cowboys could kick their asses.

[kutter]

Ninjas suck. Cowboys could kick their asses.

Yeah but what about Chuck Norris, who is a cowboy AND a ninja (sort of).

[Methais]

Yeah but what about Chuck Norris, who is a cowboy AND a ninja (sort of).

Other than Bruce Lee, only Chuck Norris can kick Chuck Norris's ass.

[Taernath]

The government tends to take things more seriously when the intent of the lawbreakers is to attack another person's rights.
...
So really this law isn't much different than what laws already exist, expect it takes away the conspiracy requirement, adds on the disguise requirement, and adds an extra possible 5 years to the sentence.

There are already mask laws and assault laws in, for example, Washington DC.

Mask law:


§ 22–3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.
...
(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of his or her exercise of any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws, or to intimidate any person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws;
...
(b) Any person who violates any provision of § 22-3312.02 or § 22-3312.03 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or imprisonment not to exceed 180 days, or both.

Agg. assault

(b) Any person convicted of aggravated assault shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01 or be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

My point is that if agg assault is already a 10 year penalty, and using a mask while doing it is already a misdemeanor, what's the point of combining the two into a 15 year sentence unless you're trying to score antiantifa points?

[Whirlin]

It's not just wearing masks though, it's also attacking or intimidating someone for enjoying their rights.

Also the law allows for a fine or up to 15 years in prison. It's highly unlikely someone is going to get 15 years in prison for shouting at someone while wearing a mask. Now if the person were beating someone with a baseball bat while wearing a mask because their victim dared to express their first amendment rights then they might get 15 years and I would have no problem with that.

I WAS enjoying reading these forums, but the "masked" TGO01 intimidated me with his avatar, and now I'm not enjoying my rights anymore.
15 years in jail.

[rolfard]

Are your rights being pooped on by a person hiding behind a masked anon-avatar online? Maybe the Phillie Green guy pushed you? Did someome at a masquerade ball suddenly trigger you?

You're in luck! Trump will prosecute!

[Tgo01]

My point is that if agg assault is already a 10 year penalty, and using a mask while doing it is already a misdemeanor, what's the point of combining the two into a 15 year sentence unless you're trying to score antiantifa points?

Because this new law doesn't require aggravated assault. Someone showing up at a rally in a mask and threatening to kill someone's family because they want to stop them from exercising their free speech would be enough.

Also this is a federal law, I'm unaware of any federal mask laws that specifically refer to intimidating someone for engaging in their rights.

[Methais]

I WAS enjoying reading these forums, but the "masked" TGO01 intimidated me with his avatar, and now I'm not enjoying my rights anymore.
15 years in jail.

What mask?

http://forum.gsplayers.com/image.php?u=6650&dateline=1498767899

[Wrathbringer]

I would like to formally request an exemption from this law on behalf of the ninja community.

Please, allow me to state my case...

The Official Ninja Post
Real Ultimate Power

Hi, this post is all about ninjas, REAL NINJAS. This post is awesome. My name is Robert and I can't stop thinking about ninjas. These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.

Facts:

1. Ninjas are mammals.
2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.

Weapons and gear:

https://i.imgur.com/4VBlsSV.png

Testimonial:

Ninjas can kill anyone they want! Ninjas cut off heads ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this ninja who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon the ninja killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a ninja totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window.

And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't believe that ninjas have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will chop your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.

Ninjas are sooooooooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants. I can't believe it sometimes, but I feel it inside my heart. These guys are totally awesome and that's a fact. Ninjas are fast, smooth, cool, strong, powerful, and sweet. I can't wait to start yoga next year. I love ninjas with all of my body (including my pee pee).

Q and A:.

Q: Why is everyone so obsessed about ninjas?
A: Ninjas are the ultimate paradox. On the one hand they don't give a crap, but on the other hand, ninjas are very careful and precise.

Q: I heard that ninjas are always cruel or mean. What's their problem?
A: Whoever told you that is a total liar. Just like other mammals, ninjas can be mean OR totally awesome.

Q: What do ninjas do when they're not cutting off heads or flipping out?
A: Most of their free time is spent flying, but sometime they stab. (Ask Mark if you don't believe me.)

http://www.realultimatepower.net/ninja/kidgarbage.jpg
This is a picture of my best friend Mark showing off. He's a lot older than me and almost done with puberty, which is bragable.

http://www.realultimatepower.net/ninja/ninjasig.jpg Link to me, by cutting and pasting the link box!
FastCounter by bCentral
================================================== ==
realultimatepower.net
All material here is the property of Robert Hamburger
Copyright 2005


Thank you.

:wtf:

[Tgo01]

What mask?

http://forum.gsplayers.com/image.php?u=6650&dateline=1498767899

That's what I'm saying. Is Whirlin implying I'm not a bespectacled dog who likes to read?

Where's that subpoena form.

[Taernath]

Because this new law doesn't require aggravated assault. Someone showing up at a rally in a mask and threatening to kill someone's family because they want to stop them from exercising their free speech would be enough.

They are the same law. Both contain 'force or threat of force' language.

Also I'd just like to point out that Methais' avatar is designed to wilfully disguise, mask if you will, his identity and will likely carry more serious consequences once pk has finished his subpoena and grand jury selection.

[Methais]

They are the same law. Both contain 'force or threat of force' language.

Also I'd just like to point out that Methais' avatar is designed to wilfully disguise, mask if you will, his identity and will likely carry more serious consequences once pk has finished his subpoena and grand jury selection.

http://i.imgur.com/EqQOTR9.gif

[Tgo01]

They are the same law. Both contain 'force or threat of force' language.

Yes but one is a federal law and one is a DC law.

[Methais]

Yes but one is a federal law and one is a DC law.

Forget all that shit, we can't let Whirlin slide on this mask thing.

I have obtained proof that Tgo is in fact not wearing a mask.


https://youtu.be/DaxkI_75c-8

He even likes to read. What more proof do you people need?

[Neveragain]

Democrats would never pass something like that. This is a very Republican thing to do. It's all part of their obsession with enshrining minority rule.

I'm glad we agree, we need to end all affirmative action laws. Merits should always come before melanin content.

[Methais]

Democrats would never pass something like that. This is a very Republican thing to do. It's all part of their obsession with enshrining minority rule.



Wait- is the argument they're making here that you are actually fine with white supremacy, but you pretend to hate it when it's convenient?

Because that's some deep irony.

What are your thoughts on this racist tweet? You forgot to answer the other day while you were talking about that irony. Which I have no doubt was purely by accident.

https://i.imgur.com/lP5w6Pm.jpg

[Taernath]

Yes but one is a federal law and one is a DC law.

Why do you need a separate, harsher federal law when assault is already illegal everywhere and many states already have mask laws? Something something state's rights?


http://i.imgur.com/EqQOTR9.gif

https://i.imgur.com/9WcTmG7.jpg

[Tgo01]

Why do you need a separate, harsher federal law when assault is already illegal everywhere and many states already have mask laws? Something something state's rights?

This would cover crimes committed on federal land. Also the federal government has a particular interest in protecting the rights of citizens.

[kutter]

Why do you need a separate, harsher federal law when assault is already illegal everywhere and many states already have mask laws? Something something state's rights?



https://i.imgur.com/9WcTmG7.jpg

So then I assume you are good with getting rid of all the Hate Crime laws as well since all they do is double up penalties?

[Gelston]

I think you guys are supporting this based on title alone. The text is foolishly broad, and would never pass a court challenge. This is a waste of tax payer dollars.

It is already the law in a few states. Louisiana for one.

[Gelston]

My personal thoughts, if you are wearing a mask, you obviously don't want people to know who you are. Why don't you want people to know who you are? Are you about to do something illegal? Are you doing something morally or ethically wrong? Or is it halloween?

As long as just wearing a mask by itself isn't illegal, I don't have any issue with this law. It basically boils down to "Don't break the law and especially don't try to conceal yourself while breaking it."

BTW, it makes it illegal to wear the full KKK hoods too. It ain't just ANTIFA.

[RichardCranium]

So then I assume you are good with getting rid of all the Hate Crime laws as well since all they do is double up penalties?

Hate crime laws are inherently racist and bigoted.

[time4fun]

Hate crime laws are inherently racist and bigoted.

Um. How is that exactly?

You know- labeling all efforts to account for and combat prejudice as bigoted only serves to protect actual bigotry and to deny Justice to its victims.

[RichardCranium]

Um. How is that exactly?

You know- labeling all efforts to account for and combat prejudice as bigoted only serves to protect actual bigotry and to deny Justice to its victims.

Because all people are created equal and a crime is a crime is a crime is a crime.

[Gelston]

Um. How is that exactly?

You know- labeling all efforts to account for and combat prejudice as bigoted only serves to protect actual bigotry and to deny Justice to its victims.

Because in and of itself it is using race to determine if one crime is more severe than another?

[time4fun]

Because all people are created equal and a crime is a crime is a crime is a crime.

Then I suppose all crimes should have identical sentencing gudelines?

[Whirlin]

My personal thoughts, if you are wearing a mask, you obviously don't want people to know who you are. Why don't you want people to know who you are? Are you about to do something illegal? Are you doing something morally or ethically wrong? Or is it halloween?
As long as just wearing a mask by itself isn't illegal, I don't have any issue with this law. It basically boils down to "Don't break the law and especially don't try to conceal yourself while breaking it."
BTW, it makes it illegal to wear the full KKK hoods too. It ain't just ANTIFA.
It seems dumb and vague, and seems like it can be used against protests with it's vagueness.
Assault someone? 5 years. Assault someone while wearing a 'mask'? 15 years.
Quotes around mask also makes me wonder jurisdiction and they're going to use it as a cyberlaw or something.

[Ashlander]

What happens if they do all that but aren't wearing a mask though?

And does this apply to ninjas? If so that's racist. Not that they would get caught, but still.

http://www.realultimatepower.net/ninja/ninjaparty.jpg (www.realultimatepower.net)

Fake ninjas everyone knows real ninjas can't be photographed.

[SonoftheNorth]

Assault someone? 5 years. Assault someone while wearing a 'mask'? 15 years.

https://pics.me.me/no-one-cared-who-i-was-until-i-put-on-6088527.png

[Tgo01]

It seems dumb and vague, and seems like it can be used against protests with it's vagueness.
Assault someone? 5 years. Assault someone while wearing a 'mask'? 15 years.
Quotes around mask also makes me wonder jurisdiction and they're going to use it as a cyberlaw or something.

How is it vague? It's written pretty clearly.

[Wrathbringer]

Then I suppose all crimes should have identical sentencing gudelines?

You're retarded.

[Taernath]

Because in and of itself it is using race to determine if one crime is more severe than another?

Would you agree there's a difference between murdering a black man, and murdering a black man because he is black? Motives play a role in sentencing, hate crime laws are no different.

[time4fun]

Would you agree there's a difference between murdering a black man, and murdering a black man because he is black? Motives play a role in sentencing, hate crime laws are no different.

This.

Hate crimes aren't simple assaults/murders/etc. They're acts of terror. They affect the community differently, and the long-term psychological consequences for the victims are more severe.

It's the same reason why setting off a car bomb to insight terror in the local population gets a more severe sentence than setting one off for kicks.

Gaguing the number of victims and the severity of the impact on them is ALWAYS factored into sentencing. Hate crimes aren't a special case, but treating them like they are just normal crimes would be making them one.

[Tgo01]

This.

Hate crimes aren't simple assaults/murders/etc. They're acts of terror. They affect the community differently, and the long-term psychological consequences for the victims are more severe.

It's the same reason why setting off a car bomb to insight terror in the local population gets a more severe sentence than setting one off for kicks.

Gaguing the number of victims and the severity of the impact on them is ALWAYS factored into sentencing. Hate crimes aren't a special case, but treating them like they are just normal crimes would be making them one.

Surely you're in favor of tacking on additional charges if people are targeted for their political view or for exercising their rights then. After all they affect the community differently and the long-term psychological consequences for the victims are more severe.

Or are you against this particular bill because it was introduced by Republicans or because Antifa generally targets Republicans. Or is it both? You are so intellectually dishonest it's quite honestly disgusting.

[Gelston]

It seems dumb and vague, and seems like it can be used against protests with it's vagueness.
Assault someone? 5 years. Assault someone while wearing a 'mask'? 15 years.
Quotes around mask also makes me wonder jurisdiction and they're going to use it as a cyberlaw or something.

I see it as an aggravating charge. Robbery is illegal, but if you do it with a gun it is even more serious.


Would you agree there's a difference between murdering a black man, and murdering a black man because he is black? Motives play a role in sentencing, hate crime laws are no different.

I don't really see a difference, no. If someone murders someone, they obviously hate someone. I don't think there is a difference between one 1st degree murder and another.

Hate crimes existed as a way for the Federal Government to get involved because local law wasn't doing anything. I think we are beyond that.

[RichardCranium]

Then I suppose all crimes should have identical sentencing gudelines?

It's politicizing a justice system that should essentially be apolitical. Do you believe that there should exist a hierarchy of victims?

[Gelston]

A mask is akin to trying to conceal evidence. It isn't anything like hate crimes and I don't know why hate crimes have weaseled into this discussion in the first place.

[time4fun]

It's politicizing a justice system that should essentially be apolitical. Do you believe that there should exist a hierarchy of victims?



First off- hate crimes are inherently political acts of terror. Pretending they shouldn't be treated as such just because they happen to involve minority populations is politicizing our justice system.

Hate crimes are treated like any other act of terror- there is enhanced sentencing because the damage done is much more severe and affects far more people than would be the case if there were no hate crime component.

This is how sentencing works for ALL laws. You're trying to carve out an exemption in this specific case for reasons that are- candidly- extremely unclear.

[Wrathbringer]

First off- hate crimes are inherently political acts of terror. Pretending they shouldn't be treated as such just because they happen to involve minority populations is politicizing our justice system.

Hate crimes are treated like any other act of terror- there is enhanced sentencing because the damage done is much more severe and affects far more people than would be the case if there were no hate crime component.

This is how sentencing works for ALL laws. You're trying to carve out an exemption in this specific case for reasons that are- candidly- extremely unclear.

You're retarded.

[Gelston]

You're retarded.

+1

[Tgo01]

First off- hate crimes are inherently political acts of terror.

Hate crimes are political? What?

Have we ever determined if time4fun is just a master troll?

[SonoftheNorth]

First off- hate crimes are inherently political acts of terror.


What is putting on masks to attack people who believe differently than you at political events called?

[Astray]

I don't understand how a hate crime is inherently political. Is it because there's someone that likes to infantilize minorities and make them look far more incapable than they are in an effort to 'look good' to other minorities?

Well, quit that shit.

[Tgo01]

Is it because there's someone that likes to infantilize minorities and make them look far more incapable than they are in an effort to 'look good' to other minorities?

It almost sounds like it.

Blacks have to be Democrats.

Homosexuals have to be Democrats.

Therefore if you attack a black man because he's black or a gay man because he's gay it means you hate his politics.

That's honestly the only way I can see someone claiming hate crimes are inherently political.

[Astray]

If I were a minority I would hate that shit.

Oh wait.

[Gelston]

Why are we even discussing hate crimes in this thread? Can someone explain that?

[Astray]

Why are we even discussing hate crimes in this thread? Can someone explain that?

Because when your straw-man can't hold himself up, give him a shot of racial bating. It'll prop itself right up and if anyone challenges it, they are down with racism and hate crimes and aren't worth debating with because ya trapped 'em. You did it. You won the thing.

[RichardCranium]

Hate crimes are treated like any other act of terror- there is enhanced sentencing because the damage done is much more severe and affects far more people than would be the case if there were no hate crime component.

Please explain to me how the family of someone who is murdered by a serial killer is much less severely damaged and affected than the family of someone who is murdered because of their skin color or sexual orientation.

[Gelston]

Please explain to me how the family of someone who is murdered by a serial killer is much less severely damaged and affected than the family of someone who is murdered because of their skin color or sexual orientation.

Because she doesn't even know why the fuck hate crime laws were passed in the first place.

[Tgo01]

Why are we even discussing hate crimes in this thread? Can someone explain that?

Why you so racist?

[Methais]

Fake ninjas everyone knows real ninjas can't be photographed.

Asians love taking pictures. These ninjas allowed this photograph to take place as a one time deal.

[Methais]

Um. How is that exactly?

You know- labeling all efforts to account for and combat prejudice as bigoted only serves to protect actual bigotry and to deny Justice to its victims.

While we’re talking about bigotry...


Wait- is the argument they're making here that you are actually fine with white supremacy, but you pretend to hate it when it's convenient?

Because that's some deep irony.

What are your thoughts on this racist tweet? You forgot to answer the other day while you were talking about that irony. Which I have no doubt was purely by accident. Same for the other thread just a couple hours ago. You must be very accident prone.

https://i.imgur.com/lP5w6Pm.jpg

(#3)

[time4fun]

Please explain to me how the family of someone who is murdered by a serial killer is much less severely damaged and affected than the family of someone who is murdered because of their skin color or sexual orientation.

The sheer amount of privilege built into this question is mind boggling. Ignorance is a strategy, and you're wielding it happily.

I'll let the APA answer this question for you (http://www.apa.org/advocacy/interpersonal-violence/hate-crimes.aspx):


People victimized by violent hate crimes are more likely to experience more psychological distress than victims of other violent crimes.ii Specifically, victims of crimes that are bias-motivated are more likely to experience post-traumatic stress, safety concerns, depression, anxiety and anger than victims of crimes that are not motivated by bias.iii,iv,v

Hate crimes send messages to members of the victim’s group that they are unwelcome and unsafe in the community, victimizing the entire group and decreasing feelings of safety and security.vi,vii Furthermore, witnessing discrimination against one’s own group can lead to psychological distress and lower self-esteem.viii

The mountain of research on the subject goes back decades.

And for the record- serial killers tend to get the maximum sentencing that guidelines allow for a reason. And there are reasons why there are different degrees of murder in the law, as well as manslaughter. The law does not- and has not ever- treated a crime as a crime as a crime- as you so blithely claimed earlier.

[Methais]

The sheer amount of privilege built into this question is mind boggling. Ignorance is a strategy, and you're wielding it happily.

I'll let the APA answer this question for you (http://www.apa.org/advocacy/interpersonal-violence/hate-crimes.aspx):



The mountain of research on the subject goes back decades.

And for the record- serial killers tend to get the maximum sentencing that guidelines allow for a reason. And there are reasons why there are different degrees of murder in the law, as well as manslaughter. The law does not- and has not ever- treated a crime as a crime as a crime- as you so blithely claimed earlier.


Um. How is that exactly?

You know- labeling all efforts to account for and combat prejudice as bigoted only serves to protect actual bigotry and to deny Justice to its victims.

While we’re talking about bigotry...


Wait- is the argument they're making here that you are actually fine with white supremacy, but you pretend to hate it when it's convenient?

Because that's some deep irony.

What are your thoughts on this racist tweet? You forgot to answer the other day while you were talking about that irony. Which I have no doubt was purely by accident. Same for the other thread just a couple hours ago. And again two posts up. You must be very accident prone.

https://i.imgur.com/lP5w6Pm.jpg

(#4)

[Tgo01]

The law does not- and has not ever- treated a crime as a crime as a crime- as you so blithely claimed earlier.

You know damn well he wasn't saying all crimes are equal, as if we should put someone on death row for littering or some such nonsense.

What he was clearly saying was first degree murder is first degree murder, why should the motivation for first degree murder carry with it an extra sentence.

Can you also explain how hate crimes are political in nature? I'm dying to know that one.

[Methais]

You know damn well he wasn't saying all crimes are equal, as if we should put someone on death row for littering or some such nonsense.

What he was clearly saying was first degree murder is first degree murder, why should the motivation for first degree murder carry with it an extra sentence.

Can you also explain how hate crimes are political in nature? I'm dying to know that one.

Get in line pal, we need to find out what she thinks about that racist tweet first!

[Archigeek]

Under the act, anyone "wearing a mask" or in disguise who "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege" would be subject to a fine or up to 15 years in prison.

The language is too broad in both the description of what would constitute a crime, and the description of what the victim is doing. Basically sitting on a park bench would fit "enjoyment of any right or privilege" and the list of would be crimes is almost as broad. Furthermore, adding 15 years for wearing a mask would make it worse than sum punishment for the core crime in most cases.

It's not illegal to wear a mask to a protest, but it would be so easy to twist this to the point you'd have masked protesters being accused of "intimidation" because someone said they were scared, and facing a 15 year sentence instead of a misdemeanor. A little bit of overkill.

[Gelston]

The language is too broad in both the description of what would constitute a crime, and the description of what the victim is doing. Basically sitting on a park bench would fit "enjoyment of any right or privilege" and the list of would be crimes is almost as broad. Furthermore, adding 15 years for wearing a mask would make it worse than sum punishmentcor the core crime in most cases.

It's not illegal to wear a mask to a protest, but it would be so easy to twist this to the point you'd have masked protesters being accused of "intimidation" because someone said they were scared, and facing a 15 year sentence instead of a misdemeanor. A little bit of overkill.

Lolz, you can get three years just for wearing a mask in public in Louisiana. You don't need to "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person". Mardi Gras, Balls, Halloween is excluded of course, unless you're a sex offender.

[Methais]

Lolz, you can get three years just for wearing a mask in public in Louisiana. You don't need to "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person". Mardi Gras, Balls, Halloween is excluded of course, unless you're a sex offender.

I can go fuck someone up and it's ok as long as I'm wearing a Mardi Gras mask as long as I'm not a sex offender? Fucking right.

http://www.dumpaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/no-time-to-explain-get-in-the-car.jpg

[Gelston]

I can go fuck someone up and it's ok as long as I'm wearing a Mardi Gras mask as long as I'm not a sex offender? Fucking right.

http://www.dumpaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/no-time-to-explain-get-in-the-car.jpg

No, but you can wear a mardi gras mask during mardi gras. If you fuck someone up, you'll be arrested for fucking someone up.

[Methais]

No, but you can wear a mardi gras mask during mardi gras. If you fuck someone up, you'll be arrested for fucking someone up.

No fuck that you already said I can kick someone's ass if I'm wearing a Mardi Gras mask so that's what the law is now.

[Gelston]

No fuck that you already said I can kick someone's ass if I'm wearing a Mardi Gras mask so that's what the law is now.

I did not. I said you don't need to do anything other than wear the mask to get the charge. Not that other things wouldn't create more charges.

[Astray]

If I wear a mask to fuck up Antifa when they started fucking shit up, am I in the right or wrong?

[Gelston]

If I wear a mask to fuck up Antifa when they started fucking shit up, am I in the right or wrong?

Yes.

[Androidpk]

If I wear a mask to fuck up Antifa when they started fucking shit up, am I in the right or wrong?

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1530417133815.jpg

[Gelston]

https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1530417133815.jpg


And feel free to get me banned, not going to stop my lawyer from sending Kranar a subpoena for IP information on a couple of people.

:lol:

[Astray]

When Antifa was talking about showing up in Arizona, I bought 7.62 rounds in anticipation. Now I'm sitting here with about 30 boxes of ammo and nobody to shoot.

[Androidpk]

When Antifa was talking about showing up in Arizona, I bought 7.62 rounds in anticipation. Now I'm sitting here with about 30 boxes of ammo and nobody to shoot.

Sounds like you missed the civil war that happened on the 4th.

[Tgo01]

The language is too broad in both the description of what would constitute a crime, and the description of what the victim is doing. Basically sitting on a park bench would fit "enjoyment of any right or privilege" and the list of would be crimes is almost as broad.

I'm confused. If someone is sitting on a park bench minding their own business and some thug in a mask comes along and threatens this person saying we don't want you sitting on this here bench, you don't think that should be a crime?

Or do you just think the UP TO 15 years is a bit much?

[Whirlin]

I'm confused. If someone is sitting on a park bench minding their own business and some thug in a mask comes along and threatens this person saying we don't want you sitting on this here bench, you don't think that should be a crime?

Or do you just think the UP TO 15 years is a bit much?

We'll, it's perfectly legal and doesn't even warrant a response from an officer if the person sitting is wearing a peuro Rico shirt.

[Astray]

Sounds like you missed the civil war that happened on the 4th.

You mean the couple rallies that resulted in literally nothing? I was genuinely ready to sit on top of a roof and start blowing these pussy farts apart.

[Archigeek]

I'm confused. If someone is sitting on a park bench minding their own business and some thug in a mask comes along and threatens this person saying we don't want you sitting on this here bench, you don't think that should be a crime?

Or do you just think the UP TO 15 years is a bit much?

You are too easily confused.

[time4fun]

You are too easily confused.

QFT

[Astray]

QFT

Am I easily confused? I feel like I would be but I need validation first.

[drauz]

This is just dumb and will end in a lot of over reach. Luckily it will never pass (I hope).

[Tgo01]

You are too easily confused.

Way to not answer the simple questions that would help me understand your point. Or did you just realize you have no point?

[Wrathbringer]

:lol:

:lol:

[RichardCranium]

The sheer amount of privilege built into this question is mind boggling. Ignorance is a strategy, and you're wielding it happily.

I'll let the APA answer this question for you (http://www.apa.org/advocacy/interpersonal-violence/hate-crimes.aspx):



The mountain of research on the subject goes back decades.

And for the record- serial killers tend to get the maximum sentencing that guidelines allow for a reason. And there are reasons why there are different degrees of murder in the law, as well as manslaughter. The law does not- and has not ever- treated a crime as a crime as a crime- as you so blithely claimed earlier.

One of us is touting privilege here, but it isn't me. I guess equality doesn't really mean everything is equal.

[time4fun]

One of us is touting privilege here, but it isn't me. I guess equality doesn't really mean everything is equal.

So when it's terrorism against country- that's worth stronger sentencing. But when it's terrorism against a minority group it's not. Yeah, equality is clearly very important to you.

You're asking to make an exception to the way we handle sentencing in this ONE case. EVERY other crime's sentencing is at least ostensibly about the damage to the victim and the number of victims involved. You want terrorism against minority groups to be the single case where we don't take that into account- to treat it as a lesser crime that does less damage to the victims and which has fewer victims.

As a point of advice to you- if you're more offended by the punishment of hate crimes than the hate crimes themselves- you probably shouldn't be pretending to care about equality.

[Gelston]

So when it's terrorism against country- that's worth stronger sentencing. But when it's terrorism against a minority group it's not. Yeah, equality is clearly very important to you.

You're asking to make an exception to the way we handle sentencing in this ONE case. EVERY other crime's sentencing is at least ostensibly about the damage to the victim and the number of victims involved. You want terrorism against minority groups to be the single case where we don't take that into account- to treat it as a lesser crime that does less damage to the victims and which has fewer victims.

As a point of advice to you- if you're more offended by the punishment of hate crimes than the hate crimes themselves- you probably shouldn't be pretending to care about equality.

I think he is equally offended by 1st degree murder, no matter who it is.

[Tgo01]

So when it's terrorism against country- that's worth stronger sentencing. But when it's terrorism against a minority group it's not. Yeah, equality is clearly very important to you.

It really does say a lot about you and your way of thinking that you think hate crimes specifically protect minorities.

Or are you saying only hate crimes committed against minorities have this terrorism aspect as well?

I don't speak dumb ass so I'm not sure.

[~Rocktar~]

Democrats would never pass something like that. This is a very Republican thing to do. It's all part of their obsession with enshrining minority rule.

You are right, we had to pass laws like this to prosecute the KKK and other Democrats after we took your slaves away and desegregated the schools.

[Wrathbringer]

So when it's terrorism against country- that's worth stronger sentencing. But when it's terrorism against a minority group it's not. Yeah, equality is clearly very important to you.

You're asking to make an exception to the way we handle sentencing in this ONE case. EVERY other crime's sentencing is at least ostensibly about the damage to the victim and the number of victims involved. You want terrorism against minority groups to be the single case where we don't take that into account- to treat it as a lesser crime that does less damage to the victims and which has fewer victims.

As a point of advice to you- if you're more offended by the punishment of hate crimes than the hate crimes themselves- you probably shouldn't be pretending to care about equality.

You're retarded.

[time4fun]

You are right, we had to pass laws like this to prosecute the KKK and other Democrats after we took your slaves away and desegregated the schools.

Seriously- why do you even bother saying things like this? It's intentionally misleading, and you're fully aware of that fact. It's also irrelevant to the conversation.

You may be the single most fact-averse person I've ever had the misfortune of conversing with. Why don't you go back to quoting fake news sites? That's really where you shine.

[~Rocktar~]

When Antifa was talking about showing up in Arizona, I bought 7.62 rounds in anticipation. Now I'm sitting here with about 30 boxes of ammo and nobody to shoot.

30 boxes . . .
https://youtu.be/x-H1T7ny2Uw

[Astray]

30 boxes . . .

I was prepping them for when/if shit popped off in my neighborhood. Not because I'm in my early 40's have a mid-life crisis.

[Archigeek]

Way to not answer the simple questions that would help me understand your point. Or did you just realize you have no point?

I realize that you can't get past your false equivelency questions. You ask them all the time, trying to get someone to commit to an either or answer in a non-either or situation. I mean, it works for preschoolers I'm sure, but this here is the big leagues son: this is the PC, not Pre K. Ask better questions, get better answers.

[Tgo01]

I realize that you can't get past your false equivelency questions. You ask them all the time, trying to get someone to commit to an either or answer in a non-either or situation. I mean, it works for preschoolers I'm sure, but this here is the big leagues son: this is the PC, not Pre K. Ask better questions, get better answers.

Your complaint was the law is "so vague" that someone wearing a mask and threatening another person for sitting on a park bench could be swept up under this law.

This is your comment. I didn't make it for you. So no it's not a "false equivelency" question; you either think something like this should be legal or it shouldn't be legal. Which is it?

[Archigeek]

Your complaint was the law is "so vague" that someone threatening another person for sitting on a park bench could be swept up under this law.

This is your comment. I didn't make it for you. So no it's not a "false equivelency" question; you either think something like this should be legal or it shouldn't be legal. Which is it?

Except that's not what you asked was it. You can't quote yourself without editing? Here, let me do it for you:


I'm confused. If someone is sitting on a park bench minding their own business and some thug in a mask comes along and threatens this person saying we don't want you sitting on this here bench, you don't think that should be a crime?

Or do you just think the UP TO 15 years is a bit much?

Bold added for emphasis by me. There's your false equivelency. You imply that I either believe one or the other, when it is entirely possible to believe that it both. Furthermore, my main contention has been abundantly clear from the start: that the law is overly broad, and as such wouldn't withstand a legal challenge, which I clearly stated. You don't need to search for what I believe, it's right there in my posts.

[Tgo01]

Except that's not what you asked was it. You can't quote yourself without editing? Here, let me do it for you:

Really? That's what you're bitching about? That I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you think it should be illegal to threaten someone for sitting on a park bench but that your complaint is that 15 years is too much? My mistake for thinking you were a human being.


Furthermore, my main contention has been abundantly clear from the start: that the law is overly broad, and as such wouldn't withstand a legal challenge, which I clearly stated. You don't need to search for what I believe, it's right there in my posts.

Okay, yeah, great, nice deflection. Do you think it should be illegal for a masked hooligan to threaten someone for sitting on a park bench?

[Neveragain]

So when it's terrorism against country- that's worth stronger sentencing. But when it's terrorism against a minority group it's not. Yeah, equality is clearly very important to you.

You're asking to make an exception to the way we handle sentencing in this ONE case. EVERY other crime's sentencing is at least ostensibly about the damage to the victim and the number of victims involved. You want terrorism against minority groups to be the single case where we don't take that into account- to treat it as a lesser crime that does less damage to the victims and which has fewer victims.

As a point of advice to you- if you're more offended by the punishment of hate crimes than the hate crimes themselves- you probably shouldn't be pretending to care about equality.

If you're more offended by a crime against one human being than you are against another human being, you're a fully functional racist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_GQer4Dafw

[~Rocktar~]

I was prepping them for when/if shit popped off in my neighborhood. Not because I'm in my early 40's have a mid-life crisis.

Feh, been buying ammo long before it was cool.

[Methais]

30 boxes. . .


https://youtu.be/NfHCV_Y9oLA

[RichardCranium]

So when it's terrorism against country- that's worth stronger sentencing. But when it's terrorism against a minority group it's not. Yeah, equality is clearly very important to you.

You're asking to make an exception to the way we handle sentencing in this ONE case. EVERY other crime's sentencing is at least ostensibly about the damage to the victim and the number of victims involved. You want terrorism against minority groups to be the single case where we don't take that into account- to treat it as a lesser crime that does less damage to the victims and which has fewer victims.

As a point of advice to you- if you're more offended by the punishment of hate crimes than the hate crimes themselves- you probably shouldn't be pretending to care about equality.

Nice strawman. I didn't say any of these things.

[Methais]

Seriously- why do you even bother saying things like this?

Seriously- why do you even bother saying things like this


Um. How is that exactly?

You know- labeling all efforts to account for and combat prejudice as bigoted only serves to protect actual bigotry and to deny Justice to its victims.

When you refuse to call out bigotry like this?

https://i.imgur.com/lP5w6Pm.jpg

It's like you're just full of shit or something. Golly.

[Methais]

Feh, been buying ammo long before it was cool.

When was buying ammo not cool?

[Astray]

Good summary and some myth busting.


The wording of the bill applies to:

-“Whoever...while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.”

-Thus, it applies to any group which would wear a mask while committing criminal acts, whether they’re the KKK, Antifa or any other group.

-Many other states have already passed much stricter legislation. Since 1949, it has been illegal to wear a mask in public in Alabama outside of occasions like Halloween and Mardi Gras. Many other states followed suit with similar laws in direct response to the KKK.

-In Ohio, it is illegal for two or more people to wear “white caps, masks or other disguises” while committing a misdemeanor. In West Virginia, a broad law prohibiting the wearing of masks includes several exceptions: holiday costumes and winter sports attire, among others.

-There is nothing in this proposed bill (besides the name) that specifically targets Antifa or other leftist activist groups.

[Tgo01]

Good summary and some myth busting.

But Trump!

[Astray]

But Trump!

But safety from rioting anarchists and communists!

[time4fun]

Nice strawman. I didn't say any of these things.

There's no straw man here. I already gave you evidence of the fact that hate crimes are significantly more damaging to the direct victims and the community. And yet you're maintaining that they shouldn't have enhanced sentencing to account for that fact. And you have yet to articulate an actual reason why hate crimes should should not take into account the same sentencing considerations that apply to ALL other crimes.

And if you're willing to get behind enhanced sentencing for other forms of terrorism- the form of terrorism that is most likely to affect white straight christians- but not hate crimes- a form of terrorism that is most likely to affect LGBTQ/religious minority/people of color- then you are participating in the kind of casual discrimination that makes life so much harder on those people.

Finally, I will point out that you're effectively more concerned with the well-being of the perpetrators of hate crimes than the victims.

[Wrathbringer]

There's no straw man here. I already gave you evidence of the fact that hate crimes are significantly more damaging to the direct victims and the community. And yet you're maintaining that they shouldn't have enhanced sentencing to account for that fact. And you have yet to articulate an actual reason why hate crimes should should not take into account the same sentencing considerations that apply to ALL other crimes.

And if you're willing to get behind enhanced sentencing for other forms of terrorism- the form of terrorism that is most likely to affect white straight christians- but not hate crimes- a form of terrorism that is most likely to affect LGBTQ/religious minority/people of color- then you are participating in the kind of casual discrimination that makes life so much harder on those people.

Finally, I will point out that you're effectively more concerned with the well-being of the perpetrators of hate crimes than the victims.

You're pretty fucking retarded.

[Gelston]

There's no straw man here. I already gave you evidence of the fact that hate crimes are significantly more damaging to the direct victims and the community. And yet you're maintaining that they shouldn't have enhanced sentencing to account for that fact. And you have yet to articulate an actual reason why hate crimes should should not take into account the same sentencing considerations that apply to ALL other crimes.

And if you're willing to get behind enhanced sentencing for other forms of terrorism- the form of terrorism that is most likely to affect white straight christians- but not hate crimes- a form of terrorism that is most likely to affect LGBTQ/religious minority/people of color- then you are participating in the kind of casual discrimination that makes life so much harder on those people.

Finally, I will point out that you're effectively more concerned with the well-being of the perpetrators of hate crimes than the victims.

Look at her, creating opinions for people.

[Tgo01]

And if you're willing to get behind enhanced sentencing for other forms of terrorism- the form of terrorism that is most likely to affect white straight christians- but not hate crimes- a form of terrorism that is most likely to affect LGBTQ/religious minority/people of color- then you are participating in the kind of casual discrimination that makes life so much harder on those people.

Aren't you against this "enhanced sentencing" that is "most likely to affect white straight christians" but you're for hate crime legislation?

Didn't you just out yourself as "participating" in "casual discrimination" according to your very own logic and argument?

It's shit like this that makes it difficult to tell if you're just the best troll to ever roam this earth or if you're just the most clueless racist bigot to ever exist. It's a tough one.

[Astray]

Aren't you against this "enhanced sentencing" that is "most likely to affect white straight christians" but you're for hate crime legislation?

Didn't you just out yourself as "participating" in "casual discrimination" according to your very own logic and argument?

It's shit like this that makes it difficult to tell if you're just the best troll to ever roam this earth or if you're just the most clueless racist bigot to ever exist. It's a tough one.

Wait, is that quoted part implying that only rich, straight, white Christians are hurt by Antifa riots?

[RichardCranium]

Wait, is that quoted part implying that only rich, straight, white Christians are hurt by Antifa riots?

Yes. And somehow I support new laws against it because I started the thread to discuss it. I haven't even gotten around to giving my opinion on it.

[Gelston]

Yes. And somehow I support new laws against it because I started the thread to discuss it. I haven't even gotten around to giving my opinion on it.

No, t4f already gave you your opinion.

[Tgo01]

Wait, is that quoted part implying that only rich, straight, white Christians are hurt by Antifa riots?

You have to remember in time4fun's mind Republican = straight white Christians and Democrats = everything else.

Therefore, according to her own logic and words, hate crimes are political in nature because they tend to affect minorities, which are Democrats.

So she's against this new Antifa Act because Antifa typically targets conservatives and since Republicans are straight white Christians she doesn't give a shit.

[cwolff]

It reminds me of the "urban camping" laws that Denver passed after the occupy Wall Street protests and the free speech cages/zones or calling BLM a terrorist organization. I wish the left were able to must some of the ruthlessness of which the right is constantly capable.

[Tgo01]

It reminds me of the "urban camping" laws that Denver passed after the occupy Wall Street protests and the free speech cages/zones or calling BLM a terrorist organization. I wish the left were able to must some of the ruthlessness of which the right is constantly capable.

Wait, are you saying the Denver city council is comprised of Republicans? Denver itself is so far left it makes San Fransisco seem rural Alabama.

[Wrathbringer]

It reminds me of the "urban camping" laws that Denver passed after the occupy Wall Street protests and the free speech cages/zones or calling BLM a terrorist organization. I wish the left were able to must some of the ruthlessness of which the right is constantly capable.

9083

[cwolff]

Wait, are you saying the Denver city council is comprised of Republicans? Denver itself is so far left it makes San Fransisco seem rural Alabama.

I don't know the composition of Denver's city government but you could start researching it here. https://www.denverpost.com/2012/05/14/denver-city-council-votes-9-4-to-ban-homeless-camping/

[Astray]

I'm kind of amazed. The racism of 'no you're white, you can't be protected and you shouldn't expect to be' is insane. This bill is literally helping everyone by saying if you commit acts of violence in a mask, you are getting arrested, regardless of who or what you stand for. Why is it such a terrible thing to want to ensure that peaceful assembly doesn't devolve into hatred and anger?

I can already see the "Well hate speech shouldn't be protected and should be persecuted" argument and let me stop you there. All speech is protected. Whether it comes from a place of anger and misunderstanding or peace and acceptance. It makes pointing out the shitty people so much easier.

[Tgo01]

I don't know the composition of Denver's city government but you could start researching it here. https://www.denverpost.com/2012/05/14/denver-city-council-votes-9-4-to-ban-homeless-camping/

I don't have a subscription to the Denver Post, what does it say about the political party of the members?

I also like how your first post said you wish the Democrats could be as ruthless as Republicans, implying the previous list you offered up were done by Republicans, then you come back and say you don't even know what the composition of the city council of Denver even is.

Can you not even keep your arguments straight within the span of literally one post?

[Gelston]

I don't know the composition of Denver's city government but you could start researching it here. https://www.denverpost.com/2012/05/14/denver-city-council-votes-9-4-to-ban-homeless-camping/

Primarily democrat with a Democrat mayor that signed off on it. But yeah, only Republicans can do things like that, right?

[cwolff]

They're straight. Don't worry about that and my point stands. I do wish the left could capture some of that ruthlessness.

[Tgo01]

I'm kind of amazed. The racism of 'no you're white, you can't be protected and you shouldn't expect to be' is insane. This bill is literally helping everyone by saying if you commit acts of violence in a mask, you are getting arrested, regardless of who or what you stand for. Why is it such a terrible thing to want to ensure that peaceful assembly doesn't devolve into hatred and anger?

So far the only two arguments I have seen in this thread from the nay crowd is 1) the possible prison sentence is too long, which is a legit argument that can be discussed.

The other argument is the law is "too vague" and someone could run afoul of the law if they wear a mask while threatening the life of someone because they don't want that person to sit on a park bench. This is actually an argument that has been made. So I guess it's bad because people should be able to threaten the lives of others for mundane things? I guess?

Here's an idea for the "too vague" crowd; don't threaten, harass, assault, or intimidate another person for any reason, while wearing a mask or not, and you won't have to worry about it.

[Astray]

Gonna dump this here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDEFNGCBSiE

[Gelston]

So far the only two arguments I have seen in this thread from the nay crowd is 1) the possible prison sentence is too long, which is a legit argument that can be discussed.

The other argument is the law is "too vague" and someone could run afoul of the law if they wear a mask while threatening the life of someone because they don't want that person to sit on a park bench. This is actually an argument that has been made. So I guess it's bad because people should be able to threaten the lives of others for mundane things? I guess?

Here's an idea for the "too vague" crowd; don't threaten, harass, assault, or intimidate another person for any reason, while wearing a mask or not, and you won't have to worry about it.

I think "intimidate" is subjective.

[Tgo01]

I think "intimidate" is subjective.

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/68509314/ahhhh-shaddap.jpg

[Astray]

So far the only two arguments I have seen in this thread from the nay crowd is 1) the possible prison sentence is too long, which is a legit argument that can be discussed.

The other argument is the law is "too vague" and someone could run afoul of the law if they wear a mask while threatening the life of someone because they don't want that person to sit on a park bench. This is actually an argument that has been made. So I guess it's bad because people should be able to threaten the lives of others for mundane things? I guess?

Here's an idea for the "too vague" crowd; don't threaten, harass, assault, or intimidate another person for any reason, while wearing a mask or not, and you won't have to worry about it.

If you are caught wearing a mask while violence is occurring around you, one has to wager that you are also in on the violence.

It's bad because it doesn't directly call out EVERY side. Yes, if I were in Antifa I would be feeling very targeted, and in my opinion, rightfully so. The association with Antifa in this bill is meant to likely push it further than it would go if it were a blanket covering of 'any group'. The wording is finely chosen.

This includes hoods, for the 'too vague' crowd. You cannot incite violence while wearing facial covering and to be fair if you are going to be violent, show me your fucking face. You want to be hateful? Show me your fucking face so when I see you, I can point at you in a crowd and call you on your bullshit. That goes for everyone. White, black, gay, straight, fucking whatever.

[RichardCranium]

So far the only two arguments I have seen in this thread from the nay crowd is 1) the possible prison sentence is too long, which is a legit argument that can be discussed.

The other argument is the law is "too vague" and someone could run afoul of the law if they wear a mask while threatening the life of someone because they don't want that person to sit on a park bench. This is actually an argument that has been made. So I guess it's bad because people should be able to threaten the lives of others for mundane things? I guess?

Here's an idea for the "too vague" crowd; don't threaten, harass, assault, or intimidate another person for any reason, while wearing a mask or not, and you won't have to worry about it.

It's unnecessary. If a crime is being committed it doesn't matter if you're wearing a mask or not, you're still breaking the law. All this does is add a ridiculous modifier to it. It's also an authoritarian's wet dream.

It doesn't matter though, it won't pass. It's just more political posturing and grandstanding.

[Methais]

There's no straw man here. I already gave you evidence of the fact that hate crimes are significantly more damaging to the direct victims and the community. And yet you're maintaining that they shouldn't have enhanced sentencing to account for that fact. And you have yet to articulate an actual reason why hate crimes should should not take into account the same sentencing considerations that apply to ALL other crimes.

And if you're willing to get behind enhanced sentencing for other forms of terrorism- the form of terrorism that is most likely to affect white straight christians- but not hate crimes- a form of terrorism that is most likely to affect LGBTQ/religious minority/people of color- then you are participating in the kind of casual discrimination that makes life so much harder on those people.

Finally, I will point out that you're effectively more concerned with the well-being of the perpetrators of hate crimes than the victims.

Stop being a white supremacist by being ok with this:

https://i.imgur.com/lP5w6Pm.jpg

[Archigeek]

The vagueness argument (mine) goes more like this: some protestors wear masks. Someone claims they feel intimidated because they got in a shouting match at a protest. Police/prosecutors latch onto this and threaten to tack on 15 years to what would have otherwise been probably a misdemeanor or nothing at all. They round up anyone and everyone who did or may have worn a mask and threaten 15 years in prison. It's written in an overly broad manner just for this purpose: to intimidate and quell free speech. The "Antifa" tag line is just a red herring.

As Richardcranium said, it's an authoritarian's wet dream: round up people and threaten with 15 year prison sentence because headwear: dissent quelled.

[Gelston]

The vagueness argument (mine) goes more like this: some protestors wear masks. Someone claims they feel intimidated because they got in a shouting match at a protest. Police/prosecutors latch onto this and threaten to tack on 15 years to what would have otherwise been probably a misdemeanor or nothing at all. They round up anyone and everyone who did or may have worn a mask and threaten 15 years in prison. It's written in an overly broad manner just for this purpose: to intimidate and quell free speech. The "Antifa" tag line is just a red herring.

As Richardcranium said, it's an authoritarian's wet dream: round up people and threaten with 15 year prison sentence because headwear: dissent quelled.

I don't like the "intimidation" part. That is a subjective term that varies heavily by person. I'm fine with the other uses.

[Tgo01]

It's unnecessary. If a crime is being committed it doesn't matter if you're wearing a mask or not, you're still breaking the law. All this does is add a ridiculous modifier to it. It's also an authoritarian's wet dream.

A good reason for why these types of laws are necessary is because anonymity tends to make people feel emboldened to take actions they otherwise might not. Look at cwolff, you really think he would say half the racist shit he says if he were not wearing a mask out in public somewhere? Probably not.

A few white nationalists who who marched in Charlottesville lost their jobs, while Antifa pussies can hide behind their masks.

These types of laws also help law enforcement. It's all but impossible to identify someone who commits a crime if they have their entire body covered. Look at that one Antifa thug who was a professor that was hitting people over the heads with a giant metal bike lock, causing serious injuries. He attacked 3 people on 3 separate days and no one could identify him. It wasn't until 4chan got involved that the police either had the evidence they needed or decided to get off of their asses.

[Tgo01]

The vagueness argument (mine) goes more like this: some protestors wear masks. Someone claims they feel intimidated because they got in a shouting match at a protest. Police/prosecutors latch onto this and threaten to tack on 15 years to what would have otherwise been probably a misdemeanor or nothing at all. They round up anyone and everyone who did or may have worn a mask and threaten 15 years in prison. It's written in an overly broad manner just for this purpose: to intimidate and quell free speech. The "Antifa" tag line is just a red herring.

Sounds like the simple solution is to not wear a mask.


As Richardcranium said, it's an authoritarian's wet dream: round up people and threaten with 15 year prison sentence because headwear: dissent quelled.

Round up people knowingly breaking the law? I don't see the problem here.

And let's stop with the dissent bullshit. You really think Antifa is out there protesting the government because Trump is a bigoted racist? No. They are out there physically attacking people. Have you not heard of all of the attackers Antifa has been involved in? Or are you just choosing to ignore those attacks because it doesn't fit your argument?

[RichardCranium]

And let's stop with the dissent bullshit. You really think Antifa is out there protesting the government because Trump is a bigoted racist? No. They are out there physically attacking people. Have you not heard of all of the attackers Antifa has been involved in? Or are you just choosing to ignore those attacks because it doesn't fit your argument?

This case in particular isn't dissent, but if this were passed it would definitely be a slippery slope in the future.

[Tgo01]

This case in particular isn't dissent, but if this were passed it would definitely be a slippery slope in the future.

The law isn't designed at all to quell peaceful dissent. Dissenters have plenty of options to avoid breaking this law, namely don't wear a mask and don't show up at a rally just to cause trouble.

[Archigeek]

Sounds like the simple solution is to not wear a mask.



Round up people knowingly breaking the law? I don't see the problem here.

And let's stop with the dissent bullshit. You really think Antifa is out there protesting the government because Trump is a bigoted racist? No. They are out there physically attacking people. Have you not heard of all of the attackers Antifa has been involved in? Or are you just choosing to ignore those attacks because it doesn't fit your argument?

Just because they put Antifa in the name of the bill you think it's all about Antifa and anyone against the bill thinks Antifa is OK? The law will apply to anyone wearing a mask. It's the severity of the potential penalty combined with the ambiguity of charging people in mass arrests at protests and the broadness of the bill that will quell dissent. It is most definitely not bullshit. What I described is how this bill will be abused: they'll arrest a bunch of people at a protest and claim they were intimidating people while wearing a mask. Watch how fast a potential 15 year sentence for a misdemeanor quells dissent. Now THAT'S bullshit. It's a dumb bill, designed to excite guys like you. Beyond accomplishing that, it's poorly written.

[Tgo01]

Just because they put Antifa in the name of the bill you think it's all about Antifa and anyone against the bill thinks Antifa is OK? The law will apply to anyone wearing a mask.

Yes it will, but the bill was obviously created because right now Antifa is responsible for almost all of the actions this bill takes aim at. The bill doesn't only pertain to Antifa, but it's named after them because they are the main problem right now.


Watch how fast a potential 15 year sentence for a misdemeanor quells dissent. Now THAT'S bullshit.

Then don't wear masks when you want to go out and cause problems. Why do you keep ignoring the very obvious simple solution here?

Mask laws were created in response to the KKK to begin with. I guess we just needed to tell all of those people who were targeted by the KKK that they should just get used to masked cowards burning their churches and buses because we can't risk other people wanting to cause trouble while wearing masks being arrested for "dissent."

[RichardCranium]

The law isn't designed at all to quell peaceful dissent. Dissenters have plenty of options to avoid breaking this law, namely don't wear a mask and don't show up at a rally just to cause trouble.

Most states already have laws to combat this. This is all for show.

[Tgo01]

Most states already have laws to combat this. This is all for show.

Yes but this is a federal law so a law can be on the books for actions that take place on federal land.

It can also be used in cases where the local police/prosecutor can't be bothered to enforce their laws because they happen to agree with the people who are causing trouble.

[Androidpk]

Yes it will, but the bill was obviously created because right now Antifa is responsible for almost all of the actions this bill takes aim at. The bill doesn't only pertain to Antifa, but it's named after them because they are the main problem right now.



Then don't wear masks when you want to go out and cause problems. Why do you keep ignoring the very obvious simple solution here?

Mask laws were created in response to the KKK to begin with. I guess we just needed to tell all of those people who were targeted by the KKK that they should just get used to masked cowards burning their churches and buses because we can't risk other people wanting to cause trouble while wearing masks being arrested for "dissent."

It was a neo nazi that killed someone last year in Charlotte. How many people have Antifa killed in the same period? 0.

[Gelston]

It was a neo nazi that killed someone last year in Charlotte. How many people have Antifa killed in the same period? 0.


And feel free to get me banned, not going to stop my lawyer from sending Kranar a subpoena for IP information on a couple of people.

:lol:

[Wrathbringer]

:lol:

:lol:

[SHAFT]

Just because they put Antifa in the name of the bill you think it's all about Antifa and anyone against the bill thinks Antifa is OK? The law will apply to anyone wearing a mask. It's the severity of the potential penalty combined with the ambiguity of charging people in mass arrests at protests and the broadness of the bill that will quell dissent. It is most definitely not bullshit. What I described is how this bill will be abused: they'll arrest a bunch of people at a protest and claim they were intimidating people while wearing a mask. Watch how fast a potential 15 year sentence for a misdemeanor quells dissent. Now THAT'S bullshit. It's a dumb bill, designed to excite guys like you. Beyond accomplishing that, it's poorly written.

Good luck, man.

[Tgo01]

How many people have Antifa killed in the same period? 0.

I need to wait until my subpoenas go through before I can comment on this.

[Androidpk]

I need to wait until my subpoenas go through before I can comment on this.

Of course, I wouldn't want you to have to disparage your fellow neo nazi brethren.

[Gelston]

Of course, I wouldn't want you to have to disparage your fellow neo nazi brethren.


And feel free to get me banned, not going to stop my lawyer from sending Kranar a subpoena for IP information on a couple of people.

:lol:

[Tgo01]

Of course, I wouldn't want you to have to disparage your fellow neo nazi brethren.

That does it, Kranar is getting more subpoenas for IP logs. You hurt my feelings!!

[Parkbandit]

I don't know the composition of Denver's city government but you could start researching it here. https://www.denverpost.com/2012/05/14/denver-city-council-votes-9-4-to-ban-homeless-camping/

You really are a fucking retard.

Here... I'll even increase the font on the specific part of your argument that is seriously retarded:

The Denver City Council is the legislative branch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature) of government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) for the City and County of Denver (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver-Aurora_metropolitan_area) Colorado (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado). The council is made up of elected officials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections) from 11 city and county (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_(United_States)) designated districts and two at-large elected members. Although the offices are officially non-partisan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics), the members are allowed to be affiliated with a political party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party). Most commonly in Denver history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver#History), members are almost always members of the Democratic Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)), making a virtual monopoly on city politics favoring the party. Elections for all members are held every four years, the next being in 2019. The council elects a president to serve as a leader annually.

Well, your wish is their command: The Democrats are the ruthless party you wanted them to be. NO MORE URBAN CAMPING!

I'm not sure if Backlash can ever win the title back with this type of stupidity...... sorry Backlash. You were a good champion for a very, very long time.

[Parkbandit]

They're straight. Don't worry about that and my point stands. I do wish the left could capture some of that ruthlessness.

Some of the ruthlessness, like what the left did?

Stop. You have the belt. Go back to the dressing room and change.

You are the fucking champion!

[Parkbandit]

Of course, I wouldn't want you to have to disparage your fellow neo nazi brethren.

If only you could borrow someone else's self respect...

[Methais]

:lol::lol:

:lol:

[Androidpk]

The Chicago man shown in a viral video berating a woman for wearing a Puerto Rican flag T-shirt has been charged with a felony hate crime.

“After a review of the case, we approved felony hate crimes charges,” said Robert Foley, spokesman for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office.

Foley said Timothy Trybus faces two counts of felony hate crime, which are enhancements on the charges of misdemeanor assault and misdemeanor disorderly conduct he was previously charged with.

[Gelston]

The Chicago man shown in a viral video berating a woman for wearing a Puerto Rican flag T-shirt has been charged with a felony hate crime.

“After a review of the case, we approved felony hate crimes charges,” said Robert Foley, spokesman for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office.

Foley said Timothy Trybus faces two counts of felony hate crime, which are enhancements on the charges of misdemeanor assault and misdemeanor disorderly conduct he was previously charged with.


And feel free to get me banned, not going to stop my lawyer from sending Kranar a subpoena for IP information on a couple of people.

:lol:

[Wrathbringer]

:lol:

:lol:

[Methais]

:lol::lol:

:lol: